Legal Opinion

Waltrip v. Kimberlin

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 30, 2008No. C054324PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MORRISON, J.

This case requires us to determine the priority of competing liens, of a judgment creditor and the debtor’s attorney, on settlement proceeds. Plaintiffs appeal from an order authorizing payment of counsel fees and costs from a settlement. Out of the $2.5 million settlement, the order authorized payment of $1,726,632 to counsel for fees and costs and $773,368 to Wells Fargo Bank, a creditor. Plaintiffs, who had sought disbursement of the entire settlement to counsel, contend the trial court erred because the attorney lien had priority over Wells Fargo’s creditor lien.

We…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Cetenko v. United California BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  2. City and County of San Francisco v. SweetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Sunset Drive Corp. v. City of RedlandsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
  4. Carroll v. Interstate Brands Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2002
  5. Haupt v. Charlie's Kosher MarketCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. United States v. KimCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
  2. Friends of Shingle Springs Interchange, Inc. v. County of El DoradoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  3. Gilman v. DalbyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  4. Imagine Fulfillment Services, LLC v. DC Media Capital, LLC (In re Imagine Fulfillment Services, LLC)United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · 2013
  5. United States v. Christopher KimCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API